Read Time: 06 minutes

Synopsis

The Kerala High Court has quashed defamation proceedings against journalist and lawyer Sebastian Paul over his remarks made during a public speech, allegedly comparing the lawyer community to street dogs.

The case stemmed from a speech delivered by Paul (petitioner) at a journalists’ gathering in Kozhikode on October 20, 2016, amid tensions between journalists and lawyers in Kerala. Paul allegedly likened the lawyer community to street dogs, a comment extensively covered by print and visual media. Advocate P.R. Ashokan (first respondent) filed a private defamation complaint in the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Taliparamba, claiming the remark tarnished the reputation of the lawyer community. The magistrate admitted the complaint and issued summons to Paul.

In response, Paul filed a petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), seeking to quash the proceedings. It was argued that his comments, even if taken at face value, did not meet the standards for defamation under Sections 499 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). It was also highlighted that the High Court had previously quashed similar complaints against him in other cases.

A Single judge bench comprising Justice G. Girish, held that the complainant could not be considered an “aggrieved person” under Section 199(1) CrPC, as the alleged defamatory remarks did not target an identifiable body of individuals within the legal community. The court noted that defamation under Explanation 2 of Section 499 IPC requires the impugned remarks to be directed at a specific and identifiable group, which was not the case here.

The court noted: “As per Explanation 2 under Section 499 I.P.C, an imputation concerning a company or an association or collection of persons as such may amount to defamation.” However, it clarified that “the controversial remarks made by the petitioner in his speech on 20.10.2016 cannot be said to be one intended to denigrate the entire lawyer community. As such, it cannot be said that the above remarks of the petitioner had caused harm to the reputation of the first respondent as a member of the lawyer community.”

Relying on precedents such as G. Narasimhan v. T.V. Chokkappa (1972) and S. Khushboo v. Kanniammal (2010), the court observed that Paul's remarks pertained only to a subset of lawyers and were not intended to defame the entire profession. “The complainant, who was a practising Lawyer at Thiruvananthapuram, cannot be treated as a person aggrieved within the meaning of Section 199 (1) Cr.P.C when the group which he is allegedly representing, cannot be brought within the category of ‘class of persons’ within the meaning of Explanation 2 of Section 499 I.P.C,” the court stated.

As a result, the court quashed the proceedings against the petitioner.

 

Cause Title: Sebastian Paul v P.R. Ashokan [CRL.MC NO. 1280 OF 2020]